If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I hope we get another video game market crash. It would shut down a lot of the shovelware companies, companies that bought up developers to try and gain a monopoly would suffer... I have to think the first video game crash was a good thing seeing what shape the industry was in at the time. Nintendo and Sega rose from those ashes with better consoles and games. If Atari and Coleco had been left to do as they'd been doing we'd probably have seen few advancements in home game console tech and might just now be breaching the levels of the PS1. Come on, you've seen the Atari 2600 and its era of games? Jumping from that to the NES was a huge leap.

MS entering the console market was a good thing, but both them and Sony need to leave. They both have strong anti-consumer attitudes. I haven't purchased a Sony product since they took a retailer to court and ran their business under all for the "crime" of selling import consoles. Nintendo I'd like to see stay in the software market, but a couple new companies making the hardware would be nice. The 3 now are focusing on gimmick controls, Netflix and a bunch of other useless services. It's like cell phones- the fact the things can make phone calls is practically forgotten amidst casual games, text messages, cameras and all that.

I found it funny that Activision were so pleased that in Ghosts you could lean around corners and jump over objects without breaking your stride. Something other games already do and have done for many years.

The only thing you need to know about the game industry is that they've kept idiots like Bernie Stolar around. Remember him? he was the guy who almost killed the PS1 in its first year because he vetoed every good game, then got fired by Sony because they realized FF7 would probably sell better than junk no one wanted to play, only for Sega to hire him and wreck the Saturn. He is still somehow working in the game industry despite not having a clue what actually sells. Gee, should we be surprised Sega left the hardware market and that they and no one else ruined Sonic(I'm tired of hearing "Sonic fans are creepy and ruined it all!" when it was terrible games, a terrible cartoon and that terrible comic that ruined Sonic, and Sega were the only ones to blame for it)?

Reggie is NOA's mouthpiece, I don't think he actually does anything but parrot whatever NOJ wishes him to say. Mike Capps at Epic is one of the biggest slimebuckets in the industry right now and one of the biggest opponents of used game sales(no wonder I feel no need to touch GeOW with a 10-foot pole). The game industry is full of incompetents and greedy types, and trust me, I've played some recent games. A lot of the people who make video games don't play video games. Geniuses like Sam Lake get mistreated while we get more of the same bland nonsense from people like Kojima over and over. The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason the modern Elder Scrolls games are selling is because the PC games are mod friendly- the base games are mediocre and boring and whoever came up with Oblivion's default level scaling system needs a smack. I dread to think of people playing those games on consoles with no mods. I don't know if people even pay attention to TES lore much anymore seeing as Bethesda constantly retcons stuff out. I see more interesting games on Kongregate than I do in stores and people in their basements in their spare time are making better than dev teams with multi-million budgets.

The game industry is moving into a territory of bland games with no imagination, the same old games over and over, and treating paying customers like slaves, while screaming PIRACY and USED SALES instead of admitting that half the games they sell are garbage that end up at Gamestop because they were beaten in 2 hours and have no replay value.

TES are damn awesome games which are loved by a great many people, myself included and I have absolutely NO issue with the levelling systems in them at all. Oh and I am 100% a console gamer and play TES on my Xbox so I can quite honestly say that modding is not a draw for me to these games because it doesn't really exist on consoles.

That has to be one of the ugliest things I've ever seen. I understand the thought process, but I think once again Microsoft missed the mark on design. It looks like a VCR from the 80s. .

They probably did this so they can later sell a thinner version

Originally Posted by Ridureyu

I'm also looking at things like SImCIty and DIablo III's "Always On" debacles - when those become the industry standard, people will be too used to them to complain...

I do 99% of my gaming online and it doesn't really bother me. D3's connectivity wasn't that bad for me. Even so, it was addressed and fixed pretty quick. Sim City was a disaster no doubt. Still is IMO. I haven't played in a while because I'm waiting for the bugs to get out.

What really sucks is the internet connection. My brother does not have internet at his house. Cable is not an option, DSL is not available, so unless it was for the Verizon MiFi he would have to resort back to dial up. His MiFi signal sucks too, half the time you can't get a connection unless you sit it outside on the porch . This thing would be totally useless.

The used game thing is crap too. This means I can't even take my game to a friend's house and even play it. Said friend being my brother/nephew. I do it all the time. We both have a 360, but instead of me packing mine up each time I can just bring over some games for us all to play.

Originally Posted by hopewell

I will buying an Xbox One this year.

So far you might be the only one

Originally Posted by Heidi

I'm pretty excited with what was shown yesterday and I will be buying Xbox One later this year.

Ok, well two.....

Originally Posted by a-star

Call of Doodie!

OMG That video was great. It seriously sums up the announcement.

Other than Heidi and hopewell I haven't seen anyone be like "I can't wait to get one". That includes my Facebook people.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah, and why is it called the Xbox 1? By my maths Xbox + Xbox 360 + New Xbox = Xbox 3

Giving away three free months of World of Warcraft + copy of game. PM me for details.

Xbox One to me is the original Xbox because the word One to me implies that it is the first. Yes I am aware by that logic there should have been 358 more consoles until the 360 (1 + 358 = 359 + 1 = 360) but who ever said logic has to be logical?

LOL. That would be a tough job. Lots of people would be gunning for you within the company. Consumers would be using you for target practice... You would need to drive an armored truck to work every day

Everyone here has made some great points. Last month I picked up Tomb Raider brand new on the ps3. I played it and encouraged my friend to try it. He did and loved it and then I traded it in to Gamestop. So yes, I actively participate in the sharing and trading in of used games. That said, if those practices stopped and we had to buy the game or not play it, I would be okay with it. If it's not worth it to my friend to purchase Tomb Raider, no problem. I know I enjoyed it and I supported the developer directly. 100% of my money went to the people who made it (with some going to Gamestop where I bought it).

I don't feel entitled to used games. I know the used market exists for most products. Buying a used Clawful doesn't hurt Mattel because they're not currently producing that figure. Ed's used car lot and all the other used car dealerships in the country don't cut into General Motors profits the way that Gamestop cuts into the developers...in my guestimate. I don't know the exact figures.

What does bug me a little is people's entitlement that if they can't have used games, then it's no deal at all. It bugs me because we're talking the difference between 59.99 new versus 54.99 used at Gamestop for a new title. Is that really enough to break your bank? I don't think the developers are greedy, they just know the value of their product.

For 60 bucks we demand a long campaign, relevant multiplayer, a deep story, cutting edge graphics, quality voice work, evolved gameplay, and the ability to share one copy of the game with as many friends as we want?! And if the market sets the price at 60 we better have the option to buy it cheaper. I prefer to support the developers instead of "screw the greedy companies" if things change, that's all.

LOL. That would be a tough job. Lots of people would be gunning for you within the company. Consumers would be using you for target practice... You would need to drive an armored truck to work every day

Other than Heidi and hopewell I haven't seen anyone be like "I can't wait to get one". That includes my Facebook people.

That's the reaction I'm seeing aswell. The gamesites I frequent and v-bloggers I follow are mostly cautious about Xbox One or underwhelmed about what was shown. Only a few have a more positive outlook on it. I understand the criticism and I agree with almost every bit of it. At the same time I think that these people (and myself included) are part of the more hardcore gaming community. At the end we only make 5 to 12% of the market, based on statistics (provided by console-manufacturers).

I don't envy any of the big console-manufacturers. I can't imagine what the pressure is like. They have to make a bold leap into the unknown and hope that they find themselves at where the market (and the money) is. In the end I think that change, the evolution is inevitable - whether I like it or not. As I sad before, I just want to be on this ride and experience it first hand. As long as good games are a part of the next generation, I'm fine with the change and new features. And I'm sure there'll be great games!

"The most difficult thing is trying not to forget who you really want to be." - Nong Toom

Everyone here has made some great points. Last month I picked up Tomb Raider brand new on the ps3. I played it and encouraged my friend to try it. He did and loved it and then I traded it in to Gamestop. So yes, I actively participate in the sharing and trading in of used games. That said, if those practices stopped and we had to buy the game or not play it, I would be okay with it. If it's not worth it to my friend to purchase Tomb Raider, no problem. I know I enjoyed it and I supported the developer directly. 100% of my money went to the people who made it (with some going to Gamestop where I bought it).

I don't feel entitled to used games. I know the used market exists for most products. Buying a used Clawful doesn't hurt Mattel because they're not currently producing that figure. Ed's used car lot and all the other used car dealerships in the country don't cut into General Motors profits the way that Gamestop cuts into the developers...in my guestimate. I don't know the exact figures.

What does bug me a little is people's entitlement that if they can't have used games, then it's no deal at all. It bugs me because we're talking the difference between 59.99 new versus 54.99 used at Gamestop for a new title. Is that really enough to break your bank? I don't think the developers are greedy, they just know the value of their product.

For 60 bucks we demand a long campaign, relevant multiplayer, a deep story, cutting edge graphics, quality voice work, evolved gameplay, and the ability to share one copy of the game with as many friends as we want?! And if the market sets the price at 60 we better have the option to buy it cheaper. I prefer to support the developers instead of "screw the greedy companies" if things change, that's all.

It's not about entitlement it's about corporations trying to squelch your liberty because they overspent. Believe it or not the reason we have First Sale Doctrine is to protect citizens by allowing them to resell their property. Console games have always been no different than any other physical media. Books, DVD movies, CD's. (I won't mention cars because well those depreciate as you use them but I digress.) Authors, Studios, Record labels don't get to be paid for every resale, and neither should game publishers. If I, as an American Citizen (I'm sure other countries have similar laws in place.) go to the store, and purchase a copy of Halo IV, play through the campaign in a day, then decide it blows I have the unalienable right to resell it to a friend, relative, evil retailer if I wish. What software developers/publishers did in the late 80's on IBM PC compatibles though as a circumvention (Along with other means) to stop piracy in offices was to cease selling PROGRAMS, and began selling LICENSES. A license basically says the Publisher owns everything, and you only pay for the right to use it as they see fit. This eventually spilled over to Game publishers when making PC versions.

Now what Microsoft is doing with the new Xbox One is ceasing to sell games, and is going to be selling licenses instead. Just as I have the right to resell my console games, they have a right to sell licenses instead, which because they are contracts rather than products can't be resold or given away, or loaned. So the way it will work on Xbox One is if I lend a friend a copy of say HALO 5 he will put it in, and be greeted with a message essentially saying "Log in under The Deviot's account or else you have to buy your own license for $60"
That is why people on Xbox 360, and other consoles are so justifiably mad. A lot of folks always resold their games so they could have money to buy new ones. This means on the new system they won't be able to.
This could potentially make selection on the platform even worse because now people won't take chances on Role Playing, Strategy, Puzzle, or Platforming games. Instead they'll go "Oh well I know I like Madden or Call of Duty. I'll buy those because I don't want $60 gone down the toilet if I don't like something else." Microsoft is using licensing to circumvent consumer rights to resell.

Again they are within their right to do so. But gamers are within their right to buy the Playstation 4 or Wii U instead.

You may ask why PC gamers deal with licenses. The truth is we wouldn't if not for the fact that there are TONS of stores that sell PC games. Digital storefronts like Steam/D2D/GoG/Amazon/Origin/Uplay all have to compete with one another. Most PC gamers have accounts with several stores, Steam the most popular. On top of that there are still some Retail PC games that don't require an account you can buy. All of these choices mean that at launch
AAA releases will be $10-$20 less (No Console MFR tax), and often times, sales or clearances bring these costs way down. Sometimes even 80% off. The fact you can play 100's of titles for the cost of maybe 5 full priced console
games makes it tolerable.

You will never see this on the Xbox One though. Why? Because Microsoft's online marketplace will be the ONLY store on the platform. You will probably never see a sale ever. Unless a game bombs
or they want to undercut brick & mortar, but then they're really just competing with themselves. Factor in the fact that PC versions are often times moddable, and that you can buy a new video card 4 years in
for less than the cost of a game system, and suddenly the PC looks a lot more attractive than the Xbox One for some people.

If the fan reaction stays this negative after E3 Microsoft my change it's mind, and sell the complete games instead. I'm sure they don't want Sony getting a leg up. But for anyone who wants to game solely on a console
Playstation 4 just became a really nice option. If Nintendo gets their act together they can lock in a solid #2 spot.

And seriously, even hooking up a decent computer (Figure around $700 for a good i5, and a beefy mid tier card that matches console visuals) to your HDTV even looks
like a viable platform vs the new Xbox. You'll need a computer at some point anyway, and for the (Likely) $200 difference it does everything the console does except for
the Kinect stuff, plus your work. And the games will cost a lot less.

Also, if it's true that you will be forced to install your games, 500GB won't be enough. I guarantee you that since now Xbox will also use Bluray discs, games will get bigger and will no longer be held back by the size limits of DVDs.

Everyone here has made some great points. Last month I picked up Tomb Raider brand new on the ps3. I played it and encouraged my friend to try it. He did and loved it and then I traded it in to Gamestop. So yes, I actively participate in the sharing and trading in of used games. That said, if those practices stopped and we had to buy the game or not play it, I would be okay with it. If it's not worth it to my friend to purchase Tomb Raider, no problem. I know I enjoyed it and I supported the developer directly. 100% of my money went to the people who made it (with some going to Gamestop where I bought it).

I don't feel entitled to used games. I know the used market exists for most products. Buying a used Clawful doesn't hurt Mattel because they're not currently producing that figure. Ed's used car lot and all the other used car dealerships in the country don't cut into General Motors profits the way that Gamestop cuts into the developers...in my guestimate. I don't know the exact figures.

What does bug me a little is people's entitlement that if they can't have used games, then it's no deal at all. It bugs me because we're talking the difference between 59.99 new versus 54.99 used at Gamestop for a new title. Is that really enough to break your bank? I don't think the developers are greedy, they just know the value of their product.

For 60 bucks we demand a long campaign, relevant multiplayer, a deep story, cutting edge graphics, quality voice work, evolved gameplay, and the ability to share one copy of the game with as many friends as we want?! And if the market sets the price at 60 we better have the option to buy it cheaper. I prefer to support the developers instead of "screw the greedy companies" if things change, that's all.

To reiterate what I said earlier, the bigger issue to me than used games (which still are an issue) is the once every 24 hours 'check in' that is apparently required just to play the games that you've paid for, even in a single player mode.

This can't be overstated... what this means is that some day when the Xbox One is no longer in production, games are no longer being made for it, and network support is dropped (because they aren't going to maintain network support for a product that they aren't making money on), in one instant you permanently lose access to ALL of the games that you paid for. You don't even get to keep them if you want to.

That's both the most insane and ironic part of this whole thing to me. They don't want people trading in their games and they don't want a used game market... but then they simultaneously screw over the people who actually want to keep some or all of their games long term, past the life of the system on the market.

Do you have any older, 'retired' game systems that you still play from time to time? If not, do any of your friends/family? On sheer principle, this should be upsetting to ALL gamers. I can't see how any sane person would consider buying and supporting a system that would work in this manner.

Going back to the subject of used games, specifically the difference between a between 59.99 new copy and a 54.99 used copy at Gamestop, I see the point that you are making, and frankly for such a small difference in price I personally would opt for the new copy.

But consider this... Those specific respective price-points at Gamestop typically represent games that were released relatively recently. Sometimes you can walk into a Gamestop a few days or a week after a game comes out and see a couple/few used copies already sitting there for 54.99. Odds are what that means is the people who bought those games either finished them quickly or more likely just didn't like them at all. I know that tastes differ and the publishers/developers can't help that nor are they at fault for it, but from the perspective of the individual who bought that game and felt that way, they got ripped off and just wasted $60. In other words, in a world where the general point of capitalism and consumerism is to sell a product to customers with the goal of making them happy and satisfied while making a reasonable profit, then this is technically and ideally a sales transaction that never should have taken place to begin with. So when someone else who may end up loving the game buys it used for 54.99, I really don't feel too bad for the company who made that game since they already got their money from the initial sale to the unsatisfied customer. The way I see it, the company made it's money from that copy of the game, and in a round-about way it made it's way into the hands of the person who it should have gone to in the first place.

And that first unsatisfied customer was at least able to trade it in for some credit which they likely applied towards the purchase of another new game, hopefully one that they are much happier with.

And now by removing the option to do this, many people will be more cautious about the games that they buy if they can't trade them in, and that could work out worse for the publishers/developers. The people who often gamble on buying games that they are on the fence about brand new, trading in the ones they don't enjoy and keeping the ones that they do, are going to be far less likely to take that gamble, reserving their purchases for games that they are far more certain that they will enjoy. This means that those companies will lose the sales of not only the 'on the fence' games that such an individual would trade in, but the ones they would keep as well, since they will have no way of knowing for sure if they will like them without buying them and playing them. Blocking used game sales is not the magic silver bullet that these companies think it is.

TheDeviot made some really good points as well about why the model that works for PC gaming won't work for consoles. Though it does sadden me how willing people seem to be in giving up their rights just to save a few bucks.

Frankly, while I don't want to pay these kinds of prices, I would comparatively rather spend $80, $90, or $100 on a game that I REALLY want if it meant having it on a disc in full (meaning that any would-be DLC add-ons if the game were sold at $60 are already on the disc as a part of the game) that I own and can put into any unit of the system it is made for without signing in or any of that, as opposed to spending only $30 or $40 and having a licensed out glorified rental that I will lose access to someday.

Heck, Nintendo is coming out with DLC in June for New Super Mario Bros. U for the Wii U (a game that I have) which will give you a whole new game's worth of levels in which you play as Luigi called 'New Super Luigi U' for $20. In August, they are releasing that same content on a stand alone disc for $30 that doesn't require the other disc to work and opperates just like a stand alone disc-based game, and can be put in any Wii U system and play it just fine. I've already preordered the disc from Amazon... I can wait the 2 extra months for it.

Xbox One to me is the original Xbox because the word One to me implies that it is the first. Yes I am aware by that logic there should have been 358 more consoles until the 360 (1 + 358 = 359 + 1 = 360) but who ever said logic has to be logical?

Yep. After years of it being called "Xbox 720" in the press, and after Microsoft themselves snatched up all kinds of TradeMarks, Copyrights, and domain names associated with "Xbox Infinity" and "Xbox ∞", gamers had a reasonable expectation that one of those two would be the system's final name, not "Xbox One". That one just has me scratching my head.

As has always been the case with me, my decision as to whether or not I buy one will all come down to one thing: The games. If the games I want to play are on it, and especially if they're exclusive to it (as we know the Halo games will be, sadly, since Microsoft no longer wants to put out versions for the PC ) I'll buy the system. If another system has the most compelling games, I'll buy it instead. For the current console generation, Xbox 360 became the # 1 console worldwide by 2012 for a reason. Will Xbox remain in the top spot, or will Sony reclaim it? Time will tell, it always does.

TheDeviot made some really good points as well about why the model that works for PC gaming won't work for consoles. Though it does sadden me how willing people seem to be in giving up their rights just to save a few bucks.
Frankly, while I don't want to pay these kinds of prices, I would comparatively rather spend $80, $90, or $100 on a game that I REALLY want if it meant having it on a disc in full (meaning that any would-be DLC add-ons if the game were sold at $60 are already on the disc as a part of the game) that I own and can put into any unit of the system it is made for without signing in or any of that, as opposed to spending only $30 or $40 and having a licensed out glorified rental that I will lose access to someday.

Well it is a lot more than "Just a few bucks". For instance I got Just Cause 2 for $3 when the 360 version was still going for $40. That's not an exaggeration.
To your point though if I'm really stoked for something I'll buy it day one. Some games even launch fairly inexpensively. ROTT is only going to be $15!

The Deviot
-------------------------
"No matter how hot you think they are, Someone. Somewhere. Is tired of their crap."

Annnnd.... having the best games with BETTER performance than on PS3, due to having TWICE the RAM the PS3 does!

Look, I'm not trying to fight with you over this. Everyone can have their own preferences, and that's cool. I have both systems. I actually got to 360 just shortly after launch, and at the time was really finding the then upcoming PS3 very unappealing (I'm sure you can go find old comments of mind in the Console Wars thread of this nature).

Without going into too much detail, eventually I got a PS3 largely for Blu-Ray (eventually getting a second one for another player), then started gaming on it, and came to prefer it for a variety of reasons. Amongst those is that since long term access to my games long after the console is retired is of concern to me, and with DLC being something that we won't be able to redownload years down the road, the PS3 is appealing because I can download games and add-ons that aren't available on discs to both systems and use it offline. With the 360, you can only do that with one console (with the exception of some add-on content... but any actual XBLA games revert to trial mode offline on a second unit).

Also, I'm not much of an online competitor, but I like having the option of playing against others from time to time when the mood strikes. Paying for Xbox Live Gold access is not appealing to me. I also don't even care for the PS+ service on PS3. But the free service serves my needs on PS3, so it becomes the option of choice.

I honestly don't really care for any of Microsoft's exclusives. Halo has never interested me. I picked up the first two for the original Xbox at the same time several years back, and they just did nothing for me.

I have come to prefer some of Sony's exclusive by comparison, but truth be told, the games that I care the most about are 3rd party games that tend to end up on both systems anyway, so it's less about exclusive content, and more so about which system gives me the feature that work for me needs.

I also prefer the PS3 controller because I play a lot of games where the D-pad is preferable to use over the analog stick, and the D-pad on the 360 controller is awful.

I don't find the graphics drastically different. I do admit that in some cases the 360 has had a leg up over the PS3. I have a few games on both systems. I particularly remember the Ghostbusters game from a few years back looking better on 360, not that the PS3 version looked bad.

The one thing that I do really like about the 360 is the custom soundtracks. That's a feature that is severely lacking on the PS3. So from time to time I may buy a game that I already have on the PS3 for 360 when it gets really cheap just to have the option, but I can live without it if need be.

Honestly hindsight being what it is, even though I traditionally get all of the systems each generation (with this upcoming one being a huge exception due to the restrictions Xbox One will have and PS4 may end up having) I personally could have lived without the 360 if I knew then what I know now. There's really only a small handful of things on the 360 that I have that I can't get on the PS3, and they really aren't true 'exclusives' per say, they just ended up only on the 360 because of the year gap between the two systems. The main reason that I want to hang onto my 360 is that all of my Guitar Hero and Rock Band stuff I got for it. I started collecting those games, peripherals, and DLC before I really got into the PS3, and I wasn't going to rebuy all of that.

So it is what it is. If you prefer the 360, that's cool. As for the sales, yeah it looks like 360 is ahead just slightly. It's not a huge lead, and I do have to wonder what a difference people buying replacement consoles has made in that regard. That's not to say that they wouldn't still be ahead anyway if that hadn't happened, but it is the elephant in the room regarding that statistic IMO.

As for the subject at hand of the Xbox One, apparently the announcement of it has helped increase Wii U sales...

Wii U sales rank jumps 875% after Xbox reveal on Amazon UK

The Xbox One reveal has created a massive influx of Wii U sales on Amazon's UK website.
By Ashley King
ON May 24th, 2013 In News

It seems I’m not the only one who feels Microsoft’s Xbox One reveal was less than stellar, as customers in the UK have been snapping up the Wii U console ever since. Before the conference began the console had a sales rank of #390 on Amazon’s UK site. Shortly afterward, the Wii U skyrocketed up to #40 on the online retailer’s list. That’s a huge jump for a single event that had absolutely nothing to do with the console.

Microsoft achieved what price cuts weren’t able to do, as it got UK customers to purchase a Wii U. Those of you who believed the title on my opinion piece was misleading yesterday now have proof that Microsoft is indeed selling the Wii U better than Nintendo has so far.

May want to check what the movie studio producing your favorite film thinks the allowable limit
of viewers are when you watch it with friends or relatives. Apparently the Kinect will narc on you to the MPAA if you have too many friends: